05/28/2004: "All in the family"

The Anglican Church in Canada is having its General Synod over the next several days. It will be considering whether to allow same-sex union blessings, and that's the issue that will get the most attention. But there is also a report before the Synod that recommends changing the rules on consaguinuity (who can and cannot marry based on degree of relationship).

The change would mean that men could marry their niece, aunt, stepmother, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, grandfather's wife, wife's grandmother, wife's granddaughter, or grandson's wife. Women could marry their nephew, uncle, stepfather, stepson, son-in-law, grandmother's husband, husband's grandfather, husband's grandson, or granddaughter's husband. (No word on what effect the legalization of gay marriage in Canada would have on this scheme.)

When the commission writing the report asked various folks to tell them what would prohibit the Anglican Church from approving any of these unions, they got a variety of answers. However, "none of the respondents advocated any doctrinal or theological justification for the questioned prohibitions." The only consideration the commission gave any credence to was the possibility of coercion (easily imagined in the case of stepfathers and stepdaughters). Apparently no one mentioned Leviticus 18, which is presumably unworthy of consideration in deciding whether there is a biblical case to be made against at least some of these relationships. And did anyone think to join that with a discussion of Calvin's doctrine of the third use of the law? I'm afraid the question answers itself. My point is that there is a biblical/theological case to be made for upholding many of these prohibitions, just not one that this commission was likely to take seriously.

(Thanks to CaNN for the link.)

Replies: 5 Comments

on Saturday, May 29th, Little Fly said

Not that I find this report very savory (I certainly wouldn't vote it), but let me play devil's advocate for a second. Leviticus 18 appears to be written for purposes of differentiating the nation of Israel from other nations, and includes a stipulation that a man should not have sex with a woman while she is having her period. Of course, many of us are not members of the nation of Israel, so why would these stipulations apply to us? Why should we assume "defile" means anything other than "made unsuitable for Israel" or "behavior unsuitable for Israel?" Additionally, what effort is the Anglican church (or any other church for that matter) going to to remove couples who have sex during the woman's period? I mean, this sort of defilement runs rampant in the church. I promise you, a lot more people are doing this than having sex with close relationships or are engaging in same-sex relations. Isn't this the issue we should be most worried about? Or is this just further proof that we are selective about whose private lives we choose to pry into?

on Saturday, May 29th, Athanasius said

1) Your assertion that Leviticus 18 is "written for the purposes of differentiating the nation of Israel from other nations" doesn't follow from the text. The contrast drawn between Israel and Egypt/Canaan doesn't change the uncompromising moral language used ("wickedness," "detestable," "perversion"�NIV). The text doesn't merely distinguish Israel from the others; it makes clear that what the others do is wrong, and Israel's called to do what is right. It's fair to assume that if the text had been addressing Egypt, it would have passed the same judgment on their conduct (the prophets did that frequently).

2) Where did you get the information about married people have sex during the wife's period? I've never seen any hard data on this. Do you have any, or is this just supposition?

3) The difference between moral and ceremonial law can usually be seen in the way the text refers to the miscreant. On the one hand, one is spoken of in terms like those above; one the other, one is simply "unclean." I'm not sure which set "defilement" falls under. I'll have to look it up.

4) The fact that certain kinds of wrong are infrequently done doesn't change their moral status, nor does it effect how the church should treat it. Neither does the fact that a practice is "rampant" mean that we should turn a blind eye. I wholeheartedly agree, for instance, with those who see the easy acceptance (even encouragement, in some instances) of divorce as a much more serious issue for the church than homosexuality.

on Saturday, May 29th, Little Fly said

1) Your analysis is correct.

2) Why isn't the church studying this problem, and why are couples not told that they shouldn't have sex during the woman's period? We certainly spend a lot of time telling them homosexuality is bad, even though it is far more likely they will have intercourse during the female partner's period that they are to have sex with someone of the same gender. Asking if I am speculating about numbers doesn't make gay sex more probable than sex during a woman's period. Why aren't we addressing this in the church?

3. How does this bear on the present discussion? By context, I am not incline to read the passage about the woman's period as a ceremonial law snuck in among moral laws.

4. I'm not arguing with anything you have said in this point, so, agreed. But why then don't we talk about the problem of divorce and sex during a woman's period more? As long as we are being consistent, I certainly hope the Moravian church will start denying membership to people who are divorced and people who have sex during the woman's period. I don't see why we should be embracing or celebrating these people's "lifestyle choices" any more than we do active gays, and Lev. 18 is quite clear that these persons should be "cut off from their people."

on Saturday, May 29th, Athanasius said

1) Thanks.

2) We're not researching this, or even discussing it, because there is no persistent lobbying group demanding that we accept this behavior. Does this mean we should approve of it? No. Does this mean we should start telling people not to do it? Perhaps. But until some folks start demanding, for some bizarre reason, that the church put its stamp of approval on it, I doubt that it will come up much.

3) I'm not either. I was simply making a general point about the difference.

4) Thanks again. Why don't we talk about sex during a woman's period? If it bothers you so much, give it a try in your church, and let me know how that goes. I don't know of anyone clamoring for approval for this, or even anyone who will admit to doing it. Far from being some kind of prevalent behavior, I suspect (without any research to back up my supposition, of course) that most people would find it rather gross.

As for divorce, some of us do. I have made the point repeatedly, in Bible studies and pre-marital counseling, in marriage counseling, and in sermons when appropriate, that divorce is sin, and that it involves sin on the part of both parties, in one degree or another. I don't celebrate divorce, and I don't know of anyone who does. And since I don't know of anyone except those on the extreme right (and not among any Moravians I know) who think gays should be deprived of church membership solely for being gay, I don't know why we should suggest such for divorced people. In my experience, divorced people admit that they've sinned, ask forgiveness for doing so, and seek never to do it again. Can the same be said for gays who ask the church's approval for their behavior?

on Sunday, May 30th, Little FLy said

2. That's not an excuse.

4. For example, I do not understand the recent proposition passed by the Northern Synod of the Moravian church to require us to celebrate sex among gay couples any more than we are required to celebrate sex among straight unmarried couples. Why then is this proposition such a problem with those who would allow gays to become members of their churches? It says nothing about celebrating homosexual sex. What's wrong with it then?